create_chop_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, return values, error behavior, or any constraints beyond reiterating required/optional parameters (which are already in the schema). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action of creating a node.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exceptionally concise: a single sentence plus a parameter list. It front-loads the primary action and contains no redundant wording. However, it is so sparse that it sacrifices clarity for brevity, though the conciseness itself is well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns, what constitutes a valid CHOP node_type, or how parent_path should be formatted. An agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly without external documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only mentions that parent_path and node_type are required and node_name is optional, which duplicates the schema structure without adding semantic detail. It completely omits any explanation of ctx, valid node_type values, or parent_path format, failing to guide correct parameter usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'CHOP parent 下创建节点' (create a node under CHOP parent), which clearly specifies the action (create node) and the resource context (CHOP parent). This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_cop_node and create_lop_node by focusing on the CHOP network.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_node or the type-specific create_cop_node/create_lop_node. The description does not mention exclusion criteria or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.